"It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.

But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership.

Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)

Firstly, gun purchases don't directly correlate with gun ownership - every firearm a particular individual owns after the first increases gun sales but not the number of gun owners. Also, I don't think anyone claimed that total gun ownership corresponds with violent crime - even those who believe firearm restrictions would reduce violent crime aren't making that argument.

Basically, consider the population broken into three groups:

A) Those who would commit premeditated violent crimes,B) Those who might commit a violent crime in the heat of the moment under some circumstances,C) Those who would not commit a violent crime.

Of these, the largest group by far is group C, but for them, it doesn't matter if gun ownership is 0% or 100% - they won't commit violent crimes no matter what. This presents a large confounding variable because they make up a large portion of gun owners and gun purchasers, when by definition they will not affect the violent crime rate.

I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.

The real questions for gun control advocates or opponents to focus on are threefold:1. Does having access to firearms increase the number of victims or severity of injury for victims of group A or B?2. Does having access to firearms make it more likely that those in group B will commit a crime at all? That is, does the availability of a gun factor into whether or not they choose to commit a crime?3. Could firearm restrictions actually effectively reduce the gun ownership by those in groups A and B?

thomps:"It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.

Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

From the data I have on hand (2006-2009), violent crime levels dropped by 20% from 06 to 09 in Virginia, but by 10% nationwide during that time. So really you can only claim half of the decrease is exceptional, without even considering whether the law had anything to do with it. And out of curiosity, DC's levels dropped at the national rate during the same time, so probably no influence there.

Sum Dum Gai:I'm also assuming that people in group A would commit violent crimes irrespective of access to firearms - if you're so bent on committing a crime that you'll plan it out in advance and do it in cold blood, you'd find a way to commit a violent crime no matter what method you used.

What you're not taking into account here is how a gun would compare to the other methods. It's likely the gun would cause more casualties both intentional and unintentional, especially when the crime involves shooting guns indiscriminately like a mass shooting or a drive by. The Columbine killers don't get nearly the body count with knives.

I don't get why the pro-gunners aren't pushing for more things to keep people from committing crimes so that guns don't get blamed for high crime, basically a far better social safety net. Maybe I'm expecting too much from them.

I have my students pick a final project based around a controversial scientific theory and I have one group doing the "gun ownership reduces crime rates" bit next week. As many have mentioned, this is all about correlation and causation- they have lots of nice graphs showing gun ownership rates over time vs. violent crime rates.

I can draw those exact same graphs looking at violent video game sales, which have increased as crime rates have dropped. Ditto increase in porn website views. And miles flown by the average American. And ice cream sales.

I have a counter group for each that's supposed to criticize the other group. If their entire paper isn't an attack along these lines I'll be disappointed. The proposing group better be ready for it as well- I've already warned them it's coming.

sno man:Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

Crime is a distinct metric dependent upon a number of factors, the most important being demographics (crime is predominantly caused by 18-24 males), culture, disparity of affluence, and simply reporting crime. But there is no correlation between firearms and crime.

I also don't get why the zealously pro-gun crowd are also so intractable on all other issues. If they think guns are head-and-shoulders in importance over all other rights, then why aren't they seeking out every possible person to side with them on that issue?

CanuckInCA:sno man:Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

CanuckInCA:sno man:Up here in Canuckistan where we are a bit more, ahem, conservative about gun ownership crime rates are going down too.

/a curious aside: there were 552 murders in all of Canada in 2010. There were just less than half that in L.A. (one tenthish the population) and/or also in New Orleans (one 100thish)

I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

Most places find that violent crime goes DOWN when gun laws are less strict

Real reason the left pushes gun control is that they hate white folks having guns to shoot back at minority criminals. Our politically-correct and White Guilt Liberal media will never report nor admit to this

thomps:"It's mathematically not possible, because the relationship is a negative relationship - they're moving in the opposite direction," Baker said. "So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime."

well no, it could also be that there is no causation at all, or other factors outweigh a causation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. there are a lot of possibilities here because you aren't doing any actual analysis with the data you were provided.

DancingElkCondor:Most places find that violent crime goes DOWN when gun laws are less strict

Real reason the left pushes gun control is that they hate white folks having guns to shoot back at minority criminals. Our politically-correct and White Guilt Liberal media will never report nor admit to this

You are an idiot. Also almost no one on the left is interested in restricting guns.

Clearly we are the racist - according you you. And you don't see the irony.

Has anyone pointed out yet that since 2006, Virginia has become significantly more blue? Obviously, Republicans cause gun violence!

or

Since 2006, Virginia has experienced a noticeable rise in average temperatures. Global warming clearly leads to less gun violence.

or

Since 2006, the number of IT workers in Virginia has climbed steadily while gun crimes have gone down. Clearly, more basement-dwelling nerds leads to a safer society.

or

Ok, you get the point. All this proves is that either increased number of privately owed guns do not lead to an increase in gun violence (which makes sense, since most gun owner are not killers/shooters, and since someone who is likely to attack someone with a gun only needs one. Giving him two or three isn't going to make him more prone to using them); OR that increased number of guns purchased DO cause an increase in the amount of gun violence, but other factors outweigh this relationship and are causing gun violence to drop despite the increased number of guns; OR that a large number of guns purchased in Virginia end up in other states.

Until the exact relationship is sussed out, this stat is (like 99% of stats) absolutely useless.

But seriously...do liberals even argue for gun control anymore? It seems like conservatives are just screaming at a wall here, since I don't hear any liberals who have not personally been shot by a crazed gunman coming out against responsible gun ownership.

/member of my local Liberal Gun Club

The same conservatives and the NRA supported a guy who signed a bill banning assault rifles over a guy who has never done such a thing.

Ooo, looky what I found! It appears that median household income in Virginia has been dropping at about half the national average. And since gun violence, and violent crime in general, is linked to income levels, that perfectly explains away the fact that gun crime is down by about 2x the national average in VA. In fact, I will make a bold assertion that if you look at gun violence in any state and compare it to the national average, you will find that the relationship almost perfectly matches the relationship between median household income in that state compared to the country.

And that took me like 5 minutes to find, so TFA has no excuses except that it was written by partisan hacks with no interest in the truth.

dustman81:Let's look at Kennesaw, GA. A town where gun ownership isn't just encouraged, it's the law.

Named in 2007 as Family Circle's "10 best towns for families".

In 2008, Kennesaw recorded 31 violent crimes, as compared to 127 in Dalton and 188 in Hinesville. 555 property crimes were recorded as compared to 1,124 in Dalton and 1,802 in Hinesville. (From the Financial Times)

I'll bite. What are the populations of each town and the crimes as a percentage of those populations.

CanuckInCA:I think the murder rates in cities like LA or New Orleans might be the result of slightly more complex factors than access to guns. Last I checked Canadian gangs have no problems getting them and shooting them off in public.

/lives in LA//still alive, dodging bullets on my way to work.

i live outside of N.O. and it's black on black and drug related. not everyone but a hell of a lot of it is.